CDZ Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board to 100 times

[ScienceRocks]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

 

[TNHarley]

So where are you going to FORCE the rest of the profit to go?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That's not how a business and capitalism works. Take your pipe dream and stick it

 

[Auld Phart]

no

compensation will be made in other ways

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

No.

Centralized price controls of ANYTHING never, ever work.

 

[DGS49]

The CEO works for the stockholders. The stockholders have the ability to hire and fire the CEO, and can adjust his or her pay as the Board sees fit. Congress has no constitutional authority to set wages, either at the bottom or the top of the scale. The Minimum Wage law, for example is blatantly unconstitutional, as well as being stupid and immoral.

This concept is the law in some countries that do not have the same restraints as our Constitution places on Congress. Whether there is any value to it is questionable.

It can reasonably be said of EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE of the company in question that THAT JOB is the BEST OPTION THE EMPLOYEE HAS, all things considered. If the employee were "worth" more and chose to pursue what they are "worth," there is nothing preventing him or her from finding another job, where the employer is willing to pay more, or to go into business for himself and REALLY make what he is worth.

"Inequality" is not a problem, and anyone who believes that it is should really give the matter some more thought. As long as the person at the top did not steal the money or get it by other illegal means, his income or wealth should have no bearing whatsoever on the compensation of anyone else in the organization. The problem is poverty and a lack of opportunity at the bottom. Both Left and Right can agree on this, and work to find solutions.

By defining the problem as "inequality," the import is that some people have "too much income" or "too much wealth," which is a socialist concept with no validity in our society. Assuming, as above, that the income or wealth was not gained by nefarious means.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

Another poster already said it..they would just get more benefits in other ways...not sure after all these decades why the left has not figured that out yet.




.

 

[sakinago]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

I don't know why there has to be a limit, if a company is making money in an honest way, then what's the problem? It may not be good business practice if your business needs money in other areas like hiring more employees, new equipment etc. But the problem isn't CEOs gobbling up all the money, the problem is a lack of competition, small companies going into it with a severe disadvantage of having to divert precious resources to staying compliant, while larger companies already have the money, manpower, and know how to follow the rules that help them out.

If there was more competition, salaries for good employees would become more competitive, large companies would need to revamp their business models to keep up with competition. But instead we have dinosaur business models still lingering around from the 70s, and they can stay around because even though a regulation may cost them extra money, the disadvantage is greater for the smaller company that should be their new competitor. And when those new competitors are shut out, you're taking in the cash that's filling their void.

 

[Staidhup]

What is it Churchill said "socialism is a philosophy of failure, ignorance, envy, with but one virtue equal sharing of misery" something like that. I believe it is the role of the owners, stockholders, those with a vested interest, to determine compensation policy not some punk that has never had a job. Income inequality exists big time in your communist and socialist countries. The ruling class of politicians and connected industrialists live like kings, no middle class, just the proletariat.
To think somehow this thin veil of deceit would solve income inequality is unfounded wishful garbage. In short Bull Shit on a silver platter.

 

[fncceo]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

Better plan ... make it mandatory to pay company executives at LEAST 100 times the average wage.

 

[2aguy]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

No....and it isn't the federal governments business how much a company pays it's CEO......all the wealth does not go to the wealthy......if you want more people to have more upward mobility lower taxes on everyone.....get the power away from the central government and you will see economic mobility again.

 

[2aguy]

What is it Churchill said "socialism is a philosophy of failure, ignorance, envy, with but one virtue equal sharing of misery" something like that. I believe it is the role of the owners, stockholders, those with a vested interest, to determine compensation policy not some punk that has never had a job. Income inequality exists big time in your communist and socialist countries. The ruling class of politicians and connected industrialists live like kings, no middle class, just the proletariat.
To think somehow this thin veil of deceit would solve income inequality is unfounded wishful garbage. In short Bull Shit on a silver platter.

Exactly....look at the worst socialist countries....Venezuela, cuba....the top political leaders have about a million times the income of the rest of the masses they control.......so no...get power away from the government....don't interfere with how companies pay their executives...if they pay too much for a bad CEO...that company will fail and someone else will step up......that is how companies get punished for paying bad CEOs too much money....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Would a federal law limiting the ceo/board(upper management) to 100 times the avg pay of the employees below them work? This within my opinion would be the best way to stop the current trend of all the wealth going towards the wealthy and away from our low and middle class.

If the boss is making 100 times the avg empoyee and wants to make more. Well, he will have to raise the pay of his/her/its entire work force to do it.This will more fairly spread the profit throughout society.


I've got no problem with the boss making more money but there has to be a limit. I am putting this discussion in the clean zone so I can read what you think without the normal hate.

no way

It's none of the government's business how much people make
And we certainly don't need government confiscating people's salary to
"spread the wealth"

 

[Picaro]

Don't see that it would do all that much. A better plan is just going back to the original intent of limited liability for corporations as well as doing away with the 'corporate personhood' scam as a legal device for avoiding responsibility for the personal decisions of corporate management and shareholders; the vast majority don't in any way deserve to have their personal wealth protected while they bankrupt their companies and others. That will guarantee those that actually are competent managers and business people succeed while the hacks and swindlers uniformly fail and suffer consequences for their ineptness and corruption. If shareholders are so in love with some crony or other then they can pay for that along with their management.

Of course implementing this will cause major disruptions across the board in the short term, as the current crops of embezzlers and Ponzi scheme operators all fall by the wayside and new competent types rise via real merit and organizational skills and leadership. Currently those qualities are anathema to Wall Street and the financial sector and cause for lynching and slander.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The best retailer in the Uk runs on this principal. Corporate pay is a standing joke and the current modus mean that bandits can sacrifice a companies long term interests for short term gain.
All big companies in the UK have a remuneration committee but they are pretty much an old boys club and little more than back-scratchers.

The real issue is that the majority of CEOs are timeserving nonentities surfing the wave of someone elses good idea.

 

[sakinago]

The best retailer in the Uk runs on this principal. Corporate pay is a standing joke and the current modus mean that bandits can sacrifice a companies long term interests for short term gain.
All big companies in the UK have a remuneration committee but they are pretty much an old boys club and little more than back-scratchers.

The real issue is that the majority of CEOs are timeserving nonentities surfing the wave of someone elses good idea.

There is a difference between good business practice, and a government mandate based on "I don't like how much that person is making." These CEO's raking it in disproportionally is a symptom of a dying business model that cried for help from the government and got an unfair advantage, and they don't have to change a thing...but they in no way shape or form make up a majority of what's happening in the business world. To say that they do nothing is unfair, that's like saying a coach for a team, or a conductor for an orchestra does nothing. And they usually have a very strong body of successful work that has got them up to their position.

Are these CEOs to blame for how bad small/new business have been tanking over the past 9 years? No, they're not policy makers. Are they to blame for the fact that Americans haven't seen a wage increase in a long time, despite increasing inflation? No, most Americans work for smaller business.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[HenryBHough]

Pull that crap and we'll also need a law revoking the passports of executives who are leaving America to work where they are both needed and appreciated. Maybe you liberals can build a wall of your own.....one designed to KEEP people IN. Sorta like the one you missed when Reagan got it torn down.

Yeah.

That one.

 

[Anathema]

It would not have the desired effect. What would happen is....

1. CEO's would sell their companies and take their profits whole watching the company falter and fail without them.

2. CEO's would reduce their salaries but co.pensate in terms of bonuses, options and other benefits.

 

[HenryBHough]

Beware the regime that fails to grasp the meaning of the law of unintended consequences.